NCDOT 7-98 Categorical Exclusion

Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and Rest Area
On US 64-264 between the Croatan Sound
and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
Dare County
• F.A. Project No.NHS 64 (27)
State Project No. 8.1052501
T. I. P.No. K-4003
•
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
ja-g- o o c` G(/.
Date William D. Gilmore,P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,NCDOT
$-9-CV C. eAnseguArtZ
Date Ni olas L. Graf, P. E.
Di ision Administrator, FHWA

Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and Rest Area
On US 64-264 between the Croatan Sound
and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
Dare County
F.A. Project No. NHS 64 (27)
State Project No. 8.1052501
T. I. P. No. K-4003
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2000
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
/ /171. 8-7-o0
aig/M. Yon
Project Development Engineer 's.'.Imeg,,,,''
''r�;ESSIoi'•.;
C4-.4t. '1Y1:-ek, ?—7-OD • SE AL
19791
S. Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Development Unit Head '•FhV,NE�Q;'��
. .-,41LI g. i:24.,:J/
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.,Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Need for the Proposed Project 1
A. General Description of Project 1
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project 1
C. Existing Conditions 1
D. Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis 2
E. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area 3
II. Alternatives Considered 3
A. "No Build"Alternative 3
B. Construct New Facility on North Side of US 64-264 Manteo Bypass 4
C. Construct New Facility on South Side of US 64-264 Manteo Bypass
(Recommended Alternative) 5
D. Avoidance Alternatives 5
III. Description of Proposed Action 5
A. General Description 5
B. Project Status 5
C. Proposed Right of Way and Control of Access 6
D. Recommended Alternative 6
IV. Avoidance, Minimization,and Mitigation 9
A. Avoidance _ 9
1. Bridging Alternative 9
2. Driveway Location Alternative 10
B. Minimization 11
C. Mitigation 11
V. Social and Environmental Concerns 12
A. Social Effects 12
1. Geographic and Political Location 12
2. Existing land uses 12
3. Bicycle,pedestrian and greenway considerations 13
4. Historic and Cultural Resources 13
a. Historic Architectural Resources 13
b. Archaeological Resources 13
5. Business, institutional and residential relocations and impacts 15
6. Visual impacts 15
7. Farmland Impacts 15
8. Scenic rivers,trout streams,wetlands and water supply watersheds 16
9. Secondary impacts 16
10. Findings and Recommendations 17
B. Environmental Effects 18
1. Introduction 18
a. Qualifications of Principle Investigator 18
b. Methodology 18
2. Physical Resources 19

a. Project Characteristics 19
b. Soils 19
3. Water Resources 20
a. Best Usage Classification 20
b. Physical Characteristics 20
c. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 21
d. Water Quality 21
4. BIOTIC RESOURCES 22
a. Coastal Plain Wet Pine Flat 22
b. Maintained/Disturbed 22
c. Coastal Plain Perennial Stream 22
d. Wildlife 23
5. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 23
a. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities 23
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources 24
6. Jurisdictional Topics 25
a. Waters of the United States 25
b. Characteristics of Surface Waters 25
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 26
d. Permits 26
e. Compensatory Mitigation 27
7. Federally Protected Species 28
VI. Comments and Coordination 37
A. Comments Received 37
B. Citizens Informational Workshop 38
C. Public Hearing 38
VII. Conclusion 38

TABLES
Page
Table 1 —Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities 23
Table 2—Federally Protected Species for Dare County 28
Table 3—Federal Species of Concern for Dare County 35
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
Figure 2—Quad Map
Figure 3 -Aerial Photograph Showing Proposed Improvements
Figures 4A through 4D-Estimated Traffic Volumes
Figures 5a and 5b—Visitation Statistics
APPENDIX
Comments Received A-1

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and Rest Area
On US 64-264 between the Croatan Sound
and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
Dare County
F.A. Project No.NHS 64 (27)
State Project No. 8.1052501
T. I. P.No. K-4003
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental Unit, Project Development& Environmental Analysis Branch
The Bowser Cemetery, located within the project area, will be landscaped as part of the
subject project. In addition,a plaque containing the history of the Bowser Family will be
placed at the cemetery as a memorial to the family.
Roadway Design Unit
In the vicinity of the unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound,the maximum sideslope
steepness for roadway facilities will be used to minimize the impacts to the stream.
Hydraulic Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit
Two wet pond retention basins will be utilized for managing stormwater from the
impervious surfaces created by the subject project. Landscaping around these basins will
be added as part of the project.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
July 31,2000

Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and Rest Area
On US 64-264 between the Croatan Sound
and the US 64-NC 345 intersection
Dare County
F. A. Project No. NHS 64 (27)
State Project No. 8.1052501
T. I. P. No. K-4003
Need for the Proposed Project
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a
visitor information center and rest area along the proposed US64-264 Bypass of
Manteo, between the Croatan Sound and the existing US 64/NC 345
intersection in Dare County. A vicinity map is included as Figure 1.
The proposed Visitor Information Center and Rest Area would be
constructed on the south side of the proposed US 64-264 Manteo Bypass,
currently being constructed. The proposed site for the visitor center is currently
being used as a dredged spoil site by a private dredging operation. The
proposed visitor center will contain two facility structures and vehicle parking
for both cars and trucks. The entrance to the proposed site would be located
directly across the US 64-264 Bypass from a court appointed access point on the
north side of the proposed roadway. The proposed visitor center will require the
acquisition of approximately 6.5 acres of additional right of way; however, the
site will be entirely contained within the control of access for the US 64-264
Bypass project. It is anticipated that approximately 0.62 acres of wetlands and
140 linear feet of streams will be impacted by the proposed project.
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project
The visitor center and rest area proposed by this project includes
constructing a roadside facility along the new alignment of US 64-264, currently
under construction as part of T.I.P. Project R-2551. The center would serve to
enhance highway safety by providing highway travelers with a conveniently
located rest area that will allow for short breaks from traveling. Also, this
project will encompass a visitor information center that will provide information
about the historical background and the surrounding natural environment of
Roanoke Island and the Outer Banks, and will help to promote North Carolina
tourism.
C. Existing Conditions
US 64-264 is the major thoroughfare through the town of Manteo, located
on Roanoke Island. US 64-264 departs the mainland of North Carolina just north
of Manns Harbor, crosses the Croatan Sound via the Umstead Bridge, and enters
Roanoke Island at its northern tip. Once on Roanoke Island, US 64-264 continues
south through large areas of mostly commercial development and then turns east
towards the Outer Banks at its intersection with NC 345.

There is an existing rest area,the Roanoke Island Visitor Center and Rest
Area at Fort Raleigh, along US 64-264 located at the northern end of Roanoke
Island,just east of the Umstead Bridge. Located on the south side of US 64-264,
this rest area allows for eastbound traffic to turn right into the rest area instead of
having to turn left across oncoming traffic. This site placement provides the
safest means of entry for the direction of the predominant traffic flow,the
eastbound traffic heading to Manteo and the Outer Banks.
Transportation Improvement Project R-2551, currently under construction,
will widen existing US 64-264 to a multi-lane facility and construct new bridges
across the Croatan Sound and Spencer Creek. The project will improve traffic
flow and enhance safety,especially during emergency hurricane evacuations
occurring during the peak tourist season. T.I.P. Project R-2551 begins at the
intersection of US 64 and US 264 west of Maims Harbor and ends at the
intersection of US 64-264 with NC 345 southeast of Manteo. US 64-264 will be
resigned and directed over the new bridge over the Croatan Sound. The existing
Umstead Bridge will remain in place, but will no longer be a part of the US 64-
264 corridor once T.I.P. Project R-2551 is completed.
In addition to the existing visitor center and rest area located on the
northern end of Roanoke Island,there are three existing visitor centers located in
close proximity to Roanoke Island. The Aycock Brown Visitor Center and Rest
Area, located north of Roanoke Island on the Outer Banks in Kitty Hawk serves
all tourist traffic entering the Outer Banks from points north of Roanoke Island,
mainly northeastern North Carolina and Virginia. South of Kitty Hawk is the
Nags Head Visitor Center, located at Whalebone Junction. This visitor center is
located on National Park Service property and is federally owned; however,the
Dare County Tourist Bureau staffs the visitor center during the summer months.
The Roanoke Island Visitor Center at Manteo is located in the heart of Manteo
and serves as the headquarters for the Dare County Tourist Bureau which oversees
the operations of all the visitor centers on the Outer Banks. With the construction
of the proposed project,the Nags Head Visitor Center,the Roanoke Island Visitor
Center and Rest Area at Fort Raleigh, and the Roanoke Island Visitor Center at
Manteo would be consolidated into the new Roanoke Island Visitor Center and
Rest Area proposed by the subject project. The headquarters for the Dare County
Tourist Bureau would then relocate to this new visitor center. By consolidating
the existing visitor centers,there would be a visitor center and rest area located at
two major highway access points to the Outer Banks,the Aycock Brown Visitor
Center at the northern access and the proposed Roanoke Island Visitor Center and
Rest Area at the western access.
D. Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis
Figures 4a and 4c show the average daily traffic (in hundreds) in the
project area without T.I.P. Project R-2551,the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass.
Figures 4b and 4d show the average daily traffic in the project area with the
proposed US 64-264 bypass in place. All figures include truck percentages,
directional splits,and design hour volume.
The concept of level of service(LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these conditions
are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A LOS definition generally
describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed,travel time, freedom
to maneuver,traffic interruptions, comfort,convenience, and safety. Six levels
2

are available. They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A
representing the best operation conditions and LOS F representing the worst.
In 1994,traffic volumes along existing US 64-264 through Manteo ranged
from 6,300 to 13,400 vehicles per day, and operated at a Level of Service (LOS)
between D and E. Projected traffic volumes for the year 2020 along US 64-264
ranged from 11,400 to 27,900 vehicles per day and was predicted to operate at a
•
LOS between E and F. Using a straight-line interpolation, traffic volumes in the
current year,2000, are estimated to range from approximately 7,500 to 16,750
vehicles per day and operate at a LOS between D and E.
In 1994,traffic volumes along the proposed US 64-264 Croatan Sound
Bridge were estimated to be approximately 2800 vehicles per day, resulting in a
Level of Service (LOS)A. Projected traffic volumes for the year 2020 along the
proposed US 64-264 Croatan Sound Bridge were estimated to be approximately
6400 vehicles per day, resulting in a LOS A. Using a straight-line interpolation,
traffic volumes in the current year, 2000, are estimated to be approximately 3,664
vehicles per day, resulting in a LOS A. The peak average daily traffic for the
proposed Roanoke Island Visitor Center and Rest Area is estimated to be 156
vehicles per day.
Visitation for the four existing visitor centers and rest areas located within
the vicinity of the project are shown in Figures 5a and 5b of this report. With the
consolidation of three of the rest area visitor centers into the one visitor center
proposed by the subject project,visitation for the proposed Roanoke Island
Visitor Center and Rest Area is expected to mirror the visitation numbers for the
Aycock Brown Visitor Center in Kitty Hawk, which was 322,959 people during
fiscal year 1999. During the peak month of June,visitation at the Aycock Brown
Visitor Center reached approximately 59,646 people for fiscal year 1998.
E. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
In addition to the subject project,the following projects are included in the
current NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
U-3815: Manteo, Dare County, US 64-264 at NC 345. Construct a fly-
over at Virginia Dare Road(NC 345). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to
begin in Fiscal year 2004 with construction to follow in Fiscal year 2005.
R-2551: US 64-264,US 264 to NC 345 east of Manteo, Dare County.
Construct a multi-lane facility,part on new location,with a new crossing of the
Croatan Sound. Right of way acquisition began in May 1998 and construction
began in August 1999. Construction is scheduled to be complete in December of
2001.
II. Alternatives Considered
A. "No Build"Alternative
Although there is an existing rest area located on Roanoke Island at Fort
Raleigh,the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass will construct a new bridge over the
Croatan Sound south of the current Umstead Bridge crossing. US 64-264 will be
resigned and directed over the new bridge over the Croatan Sound. The existing
3

Umstead Bridge will remain in place, but will no longer be a part of the US 64-
264 corridor once T.I.P. Project R-2551 is completed. This will move the major
traffic flow along US 64-264 away from the existing Roanoke Island Rest Area at
Fort Raleigh. In addition,the existing Roanoke Island Rest Area at Fort Raleigh,
along with the Roanoke Island Rest Area in Manteo and the Whalebone Junction
Rest Area on the Outer Banks,will be closed once the proposed project is
constructed. The Dare County Tourist Bureau Headquarters, currently located at
the Roanoke Island Rest Area in Manteo will also be moved to the proposed
project. These closings will eliminate three of the existing rest areas in the
vicinity of the project and will serve to create two strategically located visitor
center rest areas for the Outer Banks. The first being the Aycock Brown Visitor
Center and Rest Area, located in Kitty Hawk which serves all incoming traffic to
the Outer Banks from the north, and second being the proposed project which
would serve the majority of the incoming traffic to the Outer Banks from the west.
The"No Build" alternative would not allow for the consolidation of the three
existing rest areas nor would it allow for a visitor center and rest area to be
conveniently located to incoming tourist traffic from the western part of North
Carolina. Travelers wishing to visit the rest area and visitor center at Fort Raleigh
would have to travel through downtown Manteo, away from the Outer Banks, and
towards the north end of Roanoke Island. An inconveniently located rest area and
visitor center would result in an increase in road user costs, drive times, and
congestion through downtown Manteo. For these reasons this alternative is not
recommended.
B. Construct New Facility on North Side of US 64-264 Manteo Bypass
The property located along the north side of the US 64-264 Manteo
Bypass alignment was investigated as a suitable location for the construction of
the proposed project. There is existing development located on the north side of
the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass at its intersection with NC 345. Therefore,the
only suitable location on the north side of the US 64-264 Bypass would be at the
end of the new Croatan Sound bridge. This area is currently being used as a
dredged material waste disposal site with the surrounding area in the vicinity
being comprised mainly of wetlands and pine flats. There is a stream in the
vicinity as well. Construction of the proposed project at this location would result
in both wetland and stream impacts. Also, a visitor center located to the north
would not be conveniently accessed by the majority of the traveling public who
will visit the facility. It would result in the major traffic movement,traffic
traveling from the west towards the Outer Banks,having to turn left across
oncoming traffic to access the Visitor Center and Rest Area. This could increase
the accident potential along the new US 64-264 route and deter the center's
visitation. Additionally, Dare County is planning a new municipal complex,
including a new county courthouse, on this site.
Although this alternative meets the purpose and need of the project,the
Department does not recommended this alternative due to its poor location in
reference to the major flow of traffic along the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass. In
addition, constructing the proposed project on this site could potentially
jeopardize Dare County's future plans to construct a new municipal complex on
the same site. For these reasons,this alternative is not recommended.
4

C. Construct New Facility on South Side of US 64-264 Manteo Bypass
(Recommended Alternative)
It is recommended that the North Carolina Department of Transportation
construct a new Roanoke Island Visitor Center and Rest Area along the US 64-
264 Manteo Bypass, currently under construction as TIP Project R-2551, on
Roanoke Island in Dare County.
The proposed project includes the construction of a visitor information
center and rest area adjacent to the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass on Roanoke Island.
The proposed site encompasses approximately 6.5 acres of land on the south side
of the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass. Currently, the proposed location is being used
as a dredged material disposal site, with berms to contain the dredged material
standing approximately eight to ten feet high around the perimeter. An unnamed
tributary to the Croatan Sound flows south along the eastern edge of the site and
then turns and flows west along the southern edge of the site.
Access to the site would be along a proposed driveway entrance that
would tie into existing US 64-264 directly across from an existing driveway. This
proposed entrance would cross the unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound at a
perpendicular crossing,by means of a culvert, before turning northward and tying
into the proposed US 64-264 Bypass corridor. The proposed intersection with US
64-264 would be stop-sign controlled for the driveway entrance only.
Located within the proposed site, and contained within the existing berm
surrounding the site, is a cemetery associated with the Bowser family (see Figure
2). This cemetery will be incorporated into, and undisturbed by, the proposed
project. NCDOT will landscape the cemetery and install a"memorial"plaque
with information pertaining to the history of the Bowser family.
D. Avoidance Alternatives
In addition to the location alternatives described above,NCDOT
investigated several wetland avoidance measures discussed in detail in Section IV
of this report.
III. Description of Proposed Action
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a
new visitor information center and rest area along the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass,
currently under construction, in Manteo on Roanoke Island. The center would be
located along the south side of the proposed Bypass just east of the proposed
Croatan Sound Bridge. A vicinity map is included as Figure 1.
B. Project Status
The proposed project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
TIP includes $3,000,000 for construction. It is estimated that the required right of
way for the project will cost$910,000. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to
begin in October 2000 with construction to follow in March 2001.
5

C. Proposed Right of Way and Control of Access
The proposed project will require approximately 2.47 ha(6.5
acres)of right of way to construct. The recommended site is located on
the southern side of the proposed US 64-264 Manteo Bypass (TIP Project
R-2551) on Roanoke Island and is currently being used as a dredged
material disposal site by a private operation. The recommended site lies
adjacent to the proposed US 64-264 alignment on Roanoke Island. Rest
areas and visitor centers are considered an integral part of the highway
system;therefore, they are always contained within the control of access
fencing for the highways in which they are located along. Although the
proposed project will require an access point along the proposed US 64-
264 facility, the proposed Roanoke Island Visitor Center and Rest Area
will be contained entirely within the control of access fencing for US 64-
264.
D. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative for the subject project is to construct a
visitor information center and rest area on the south side of the US 64-264 Manteo
Bypass on Roanoke Island. The recommended project location and design was
selected based on design considerations and constraints, minimization of impacts
to wetlands, streams, and the Bowser Cemetery, and traffic ingress and egress at
the site as it pertained to safety and operation of the facility. These issues are
discussed in more detail below:
Design Constraints
During the environmental surveys for the US 64-264 Manteo
Bypass,wetland delineations were conducted in the vicinity of the subject
project. It was determined that much of the area was considered to be a
wetland, except for a small upland pocket situated to the south of, and
adjacent to,the US 64-264 Bypass corridor. This site appeared to be the
most desirable location for the placement of the proposed visitor center
and rest area due to its avoidance of impacts to wetlands and streams. The
site was just east of the end of the proposed Croatan Sound bridge and
offered a convenient location for a rest area and visitor center for travelers
heading to the Outer Banks. It was situated on the south side of the
bypass,thereby allowing for the major flow of traffic,heading from the
west, to turn right in to the visitor center, instead of having to turn left
across oncoming traffic. The recommended site is bordered on the east
and south sides by an unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound. The
driveway entrance for the proposed site crosses this tributary.
Various design constraints and considerations were involved in the
layout of the design, shown in Figure 2 of this report. The primary
constraint was the overall size of the site and its impacts to existing
wetlands and streams in the vicinity. The final design incorporates these
issues into the overall layout of the site. The fill slopes around the site
were reduced to a combination of 3:1 and 2:1 sideslope such that the
unnamed tributary and associated wetlands were not impacted. Every
effort was made to contain the site design within the delineated upland
6

boundary,thereby avoiding wetland and stream impacts to the extent
possible. Where these impacts were unavoidable, design considerations
were made such that the unavoidable impacts were minimized to the most
practicable extent possible. Another constraint involved in the design
process was the avoidance of the Bowser family cemetery, which was
incorporated into the final design of the site. The visitor center and rest
area buildings were shifted such that the cemetery will be located in a
grassy area of the visitor center and rest area, accessible to the remaining
family members for visitation.
Driveway Entrance
During the right of way process for the US 64-264 Manteo Bypass,
a court case to settle a property dispute resulted in the creation of only two
access points, one on the north side and one on the south side of the
proposed new route of US 64-264 on Roanoke Island. The north side
access is in the vicinity of the proposed visitor center and rest area. US
64-264, in this location, exits the Croatan Sound bridge as a four lane
typical section and transitions into a five-lane undivided facility from the
bridge east to its intersection with NC 345. NCDOT originally
investigated placing the entrance to the visitor center and rest area just
west of this northern access point; however, it was determined during the
design phase that the required finish grades along US 64-264 would create
a sight distance conflict for traffic exiting the visitor center onto US 64-
264. Because the finish grade of the roadway would be considerably
higher than the driveway exiting the proposed site, a driver's field of
vision towards the west would be severely limited due to their position
being lower than the roadway they were wishing to enter.
In addition to the sight distance problem, it is the policy of the
Department of Transportation to align opposing driveway access points
whenever possible. There are several reasons for this policy,the first and
foremost being safety. Offset intersections have statistically higher
accident rates than four-legged intersections. This is due in part to the fact
that each new access along a facility adds an additional conflict point for
the facility. The more conflict points a facility has,the higher the accident
rates typically are. In this particular situation, with the major flow of
traffic coming from the west, and with the possibility of future
development on the north side of US 64-264,the northern access point has
the potential to generate a substantial amount of traffic. This being the
case, with an offset intersection, eastbound traffic turning left into the
future municipal complex would use the center turn lane of the five-lane
section as storage. Westbound traffic trying to enter the visitor center and
rest area would then be in direct conflict with the eastbound vehicles
waiting to turn left. With the possible development of the municipal
complex,there is a strong possibility that the northern access intersection
with US 64-264 would be signalized once the development was complete.
Having an offset intersection in close proximity to a signalized
intersection is also an undesirable design in regards to traffic flow and
operation of the intersection, as well as safety. For these reasons,the
recommended driveway location for the visitor center and rest area
entrance road would be at the northern access's intersection with US 64-
264,thereby creating a four-legged intersection. This would move the
access point further away from the bridge and to an area where the grade
7

difference between US 64-264 and the driveway is less,thereby increasing
the sight distance at the intersection. It would also allow for the future
signalization of the intersection as a four-way intersection, thereby
creating a safer and more efficient intersection. Finally, it would alleviate
the turning and storage conflicts along US 64-264 at the intersection, also
creating a safer and more efficient intersection.
Wetland and Stream Impacts
The recommended project is anticipated to impact existing
wetlands and an unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound. Wetland
delineations were conducted on the site and verified by the Army Corps of
Engineers. These delineations were used during the design phase of the
project and all possible measures practicable were taken to avoid and
minimize impacts to the existing wetlands and the stream. The measures
included the use of steeper slopes for fill sections in close proximity to the
stream and wetlands. Additionally, a grassed shoulder section is proposed
along the driveway entrance, in the vicinity of the stream crossing, that
would allow for runoff to travel across a grassy swell and filter into the
ground instead of being piped directly into the wetlands. Due to the
driveway location and the requirement by the Coastal Area Management
Agency (CAMA) for stormwater retention basins onsite to handle runoff
from the impervious surfaces, unavoidable impacts to the existing
wetlands and the stream will occur as a result of the proposed project. The
US 64-264 Byapss project contains a stormwater retention basin in the
vicinity of the proposed Visitor Center to handle runoff from the bridge.
NCDOT's Hydrualic Design Unit investigated using this retention basin to
handle the runoff from the proposed Visitor Center; however, it was
determined that the finished grade of the US 64-264 Bypass would require
the Visitor Center's finished grade to be elevated approximately four feet
in order to obtain the required drainage slope necessary for water to flow
from the Visitor Center to the retention basin. It is anticipated that
approximately 0.62 acres (0.25 Ha) of impacts to the existing wetlands and
140 feet (42.6 m)of impacts to the unnamed tributary will occur as a result
of the proposed project. Possible on-site wetland mitigation will be
investigated during the final design and permitting phase of the project.
The appropriate resource agencies will continue to be coordinated with
regarding the possibility of onsite wetland mitigation for the subject
project.
The unnamed tributary will be crossed through the installation of a
culvert. The culvert will be designed such that it can handle the same flow
rate of the upstream pipes that carry the unnamed tributary under the US
64-264 Bypass.
The Bowser Cemetery
The Bowser family cemetery is located in the western section of
the proposed site. Designs for the visitor center and rest area incorporate
the cemetery into a grassy natural area of the site. NCDOT representatives
met with the landowners/heirs on March 23, 2000 to discuss the plans for
the rest area and insure that their concerns about the family cemetery were
taken into consideration. As a result of their comments at this meeting,
NCDOT has committed to designing the project such that it does not
8

impact the cemetery in its current location. The landowner wanted to see
the cemetery preserved in place and restored as part of the subject project.
NCDOT landscape architects will produce a beautification plan for the
cemetery, entailing plantings around the cemetery and a memorial marker
containing a history of the Bowser family at the cemetery. The design of
the site allows for easy access to the cemetery for family visitations as
well as tourist informational visitations.
IV. Avoidance. Minimization, and Mitigation
A. Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a
1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Wetland delineations, conducted during the environmental surveys for the
US 64-264 Manteo Bypass, determined that much of the area in the vicinity of the
project was considered to be a wetland, except for a small upland pocket situated
to the south of, and adjacent to, the US 64-264 Bypass corridor. This site
appeared to be the most desirable location for the placement of the proposed
visitor center and rest area due to its avoidance of impacts to wetlands and
streams. However,constructing the proposed visitor center and rest area at this
upland location will not completely avoid impacts to wetlands and streams.
Therefore,the following avoidance measures were investigated.
1. Bridging Alternative
The majority of the wetland impacts associated with this project
would result from the construction of the driveway entrance. A small
wetland pocket is currently situated between the existing unnamed
tributary to the Croatan Sound,the US 64-264 Bypass corridor, and the
proposed visitor center and rest area site. Because of the design
constraints, detailed in Section III.D of this report,the driveway entrance
will pass through the southern most portion of this wetland. During the
preliminary design phase,NCDOT studied a bridging alternative for the
driveway entrance. It was estimated that the construction of a bridge, from
high ground to high ground,would cost approximately $1,400,000. It is
NCDOT's opinion that the bridging alternative, in comparison to the
overall cost of the project and the amount of impacted wetlands that would
result,was not a feasible alternative. For this reason,this alternative was
dropped from further consideration.
9

2. Driveway Location Alternative
NCDOT originally planned to locate the driveway west of the
unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound in order to avoid impacting the
stream. Preliminary plans were to move the existing access point, located
to the north of the US 64-264 Bypass corridor, west such that it aligned
with the proposed driveway entrance to the visitor center and rest area.
During this time period, it was discovered that the location of the northern
access point was set by a court case involving a property dispute during
the right of way acquisition phase of the US 64-264 Bypass project,
thereby making the movement of this northern access point impossible. It
was also determined that locating the driveway access close to the bridge
would result in a sight distance problem for driver's exiting the visitor
center and rest area, due to the fmal grades of the driveway and the US 64-
264 Bypass. The driveway entrance was then shifted to the east so that it
was aligned opposite the court negotiated northern access point along the
US 64-264 Bypass.
NCDOT originally investigated placing the entrance to the visitor
center and rest area just west of this northern access point; however, it was
determined during the design phase that the required finish grades along
US 64-264 would create a sight distance conflict for traffic exiting the
visitor center onto US 64-264. Because the finish grade of the roadway
would be considerably higher than the driveway exiting the proposed site,
a driver's field of vision towards the west would be severely limited due to
their position being lower than the roadway they were wishing to enter.
Offset intersections have statistically higher accident rates than
four-legged intersections. This is due in part to the fact that each new
access along a facility adds an additional conflict point for the facility.
The more conflict points a facility has,the higher the accident rates
typically are. In this particular situation, with the major flow of traffic
coming from the west, and with the possibility of future development on
the north side of US 64-264,the northern access point has the potential to
generate a significant amount of traffic. This being the case,with an offset
intersection, eastbound traffic turning left into the future municipal
complex would use the center turn lane of the five-lane section as storage.
Westbound traffic trying to enter the visitor center and rest area would
then be in direct conflict with the eastbound vehicles waiting to turn left.
With the possible development of the municipal complex,there is a strong
possibility that the northern access intersection with US 64-264 would be
signalized once the development was complete. Having an offset
intersection in close proximity to a signalized intersection is also an
undesirable design in regards to traffic flow and operation of the
intersection, as well as safety
This location eliminated the sight distance problem associated with
the original location. It also provided for a four-legged intersection,
thereby eliminating an offset intersection that would have created an
overlapping left turn situation for travelers along the US 64-264 Bypass.
For these reasons,the driveway entrance was located east of the unnamed
tributary to the Croatan Sound.
10

B. Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and
permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction to median widths,right-of-way widths,
and/or fill slopes widths.
Several minimization efforts were included as part of the project.
Sideslopes in the vicinity of the unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound were
reduced from the standard 4:1 slope to 2:1 sideslopes in order to minimize
impacts to the stream. A grassed shoulder section along the driveway entrance
was used instead of curb and gutter in order to allow runoff to filter through a
grass swell before entering the wetland,thereby filtering the majority of the
runoff. The overall size of the visitor center and rest area was reduced from its
original design size, while still meeting all necessary design criteria, such that it
now fits entirely within the disturbed, upland area,thereby minimizing impacts to
the surrounding wetlands and stream. Finally,the driveway entrance was
redesigned so that it would cross the unnamed tributary at a perpendicular angle,
thereby minimizing the footprint of the roadway at the stream crossing. All of
these items were incorporated into the final design as a means of minimizing the
overall impacts to the wetlands and the stream.
C. Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of"no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation)must be considered sequentially.
Mitigation plans for impacts associated with the subject project will be
finalized during the permitting phase of the project.
11

V. Social and Environmental Concerns
A. Social Effects
1. Geographic and Political Location
The site for the proposed Rest Area/Visitor Center lies on
Roanoke Island in Dare County, between the Croatan Sound and the
intersection of US-64 and NC 345,along the proposed alignment of the
Manteo Bypass (TIP R-2551). The Rest Area Portion of the project will
be contained within the control of access fencing of TIP Project R-2551,
and will not require a change in the proposed control of access along US
64-264.
The entire site comprises approximately 6.05 acres, with a 10,000
sq.ft. building, part of which will function as a typical rest area,the other
portion functioning as a Visitor Center for the Dare County Tourism
Board. The Visitors Center portion of the rest area, which will be staffed
by personnel from the Dare County Tourism Board, will house the
administrative offices for the Dare County Tourism Board and is
anticipated to have approximately fifteen employees on a daily basis. The
activities which will take place through the tourism Board will be
primarily handing out educational and tourism based information, as well
as answering a variety of questions concerning the Dare County area.
There will be approximately 65-70 public parking spaces,with 12
additional spaces allocated to the Dare County Tourism Board for staff
use. There will also be a limited number of parking spaces for larger
vehicles(approximately 7 spaces)such as cars towing trailers, buses, and
larger trucks. The will be no food or refreshment services other than
typical vending machine operations normally found at similar rest areas.
2. Existing land uses
The land area on which the Visitors Center/Rest Area will be
placed is primarily vacant with a mix of wetlands and low trees and scrub
growth typical of coastal areas. While there are no residential or
commercial activities in the general vicinity of the project,the terminus of
the road project R-2551,at the intersection of US 64/264 and NC 345
approximately a half mile to the east of the rest area, does have some
commercial and residential land uses,much of which is not very dense or
intensive. These activities should neither impart nor receive any adverse
effects from the Visitors Center.
12

3. Bicycle,pedestrian and greenway considerations
Bicycle transportation. NCDOT policy declares that bicycle
transportation is "an integral part of the comprehensive transportation
system in North Carolina.
Pedestrian transportation. It is NCDOT policy to replace
pedestrian walkways disturbed by construction. The Americans with
Disabilities Act(ADA) of 1990 extends the protection of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act to the disabled,prohibiting discrimination in public
accommodations and transportation and other services.
Greenways. Greenways and greenway crossings must be
considered in the bridge construction and replacement process. Critical
corridors which have been adopted by local governments for future
greenways are not to be severed by construction.
The existing bridge across Croatan Sound and portions of US Hwy
64/264 are currently designated as a North Carolina Bicycling Highway,
Mountains to Seas, Map A-16, "Unknown Destiny". The new bridge
facility has been designed to accommodate bicycles and will take over as
the designated bicycling highway. For this reason, the Visitors
Center/Rest Area can expect to have a number of bicyclists who will
utilize the facility as it represents the first place to stop upon crossing the
new bridge.
4. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
No structures listed in or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places are located in the project area. The State
Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO)was consulted during the
planning of the project. In a May 10, 2000 meeting (see page 2 of
the Appendix), SHPO and FHWA concurred that there were no
properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential
effect and that there are no properties less than fifty years old
which are considered to meet Criterion Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effect.
b. Archaeological Resources
In 1995, during the archaeological surveys for the US 64-
264 Manteo Bypass, Site 31DR76 was identified by NCDOT
archaeologists. Historic research suggested the site was connected
with Spencer Bowser, a free African-American,who reportedly
13

owned land on the island as early as 1850. Based on this
information, the site was determined to be eligible for the National
Register. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that"the site is eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and D, in that it may
yield information significant in the history and archaeology of
North Carolina and provide significant information about the free,
as compared to slave, African-American culture in the region."
This recommendation was predicated on the assumption that the
site was the"pre-Civil War homestead and cemetery of the
Spencer Bowser family...As such the site is the only known
archaeological occurrence associated with free Blacks of the
Antebellum period" (Brook 1996).
Data recovery investigations were conducted at the
domestic component of Site 31DR76 by Coastal Carolina Research
(CCR) in 1997. Additional documentary research as well as
informant interviews indicated that the property had been settled
by Spencer Bowser and his extended family in the early 1870s.
There was no archaeological or archival evidence linking the
property to the Bowser family before the Civil War. The artifacts
were consistent with later 19th through 20th century occupation.
Although Spencer Bowser and his family were recorded in
Currituck county in the 1860 Federal census, CCR could trot find
any evidence that Spencer Bowser owned property on Roanoke
Island before 1873. That year, Spencer and his son William
bought 16 acres from Mary Hayman; based on its description,this
tract was interpreted to be the farmstead that became Site 31DR76.
Two local informants, both descendents of the Bowser family,
confirmed that the farmstead was established after the Civil War.
During the Phase I investigations at the site, the cemetery
was inventoried. Six headstones and corresponding footstones
were noted. The stones all represent members of the Bowser
(Bouser) family,with dates between 1872 and 1912. The WPA
cemetery records for Dare County list the Bowser(Negro)
Cemetery two miles south of Manteo on Buck Swamp Road. The
cemetery contained six marked graves,the earliest from 1872, and
nine unmarked graves. The marked graves represent Spencer
Bowser and his two sons, and three grandsons who did not reach
adulthood.
The data recovery investigations found no archaeological or
documentary evidence to link the property to the Bowser family before the Civil War. The domestic portion of the site was
determined not to date to the Antebellum period, one of the
assumptions used to determine its significance. The cemetery does
represent the final resting place of the patriarch of a free black
family on the island,but nothing in the research suggested Spencer
Bowser was a figure of outstanding importance in local history.
Due to these factors,NCDOT recommended, and SHPO
concurred,that the cemetery not be considered eligible for the
National Register.
14

5. Business, institutional and residential relocations and impacts
As the land surrounding the site for this Rest Area/Visitor Center
is vacant, consisting primarily of wetlands and sparse tree and scrub
growth typical of coastal islands, there are no anticipated relocations
associated with the Rest Areas/Visitor Center.'
6. Visual impacts
The Visitor Center/Rest Area and the new road/bridge alignment
will have some visual impact in the general vicinity of the facility, as the
undeveloped land on the eastern portion of Roanoke Island has flat
topography with low coastal vegetation. For this reason,the new bridge
structure associated with the road project and the building and adjoining
facilities of the Rest Area/Visitors Center will be clearly seen. The
building which will house the visitors center and rest area, while
presenting a visual profile, is not expected to be obtrusive in appearance or
scale, and the grounds surrounding the facility will be appropriately
landscaped in a manner similar to other rest areas throughout the state.
Therefore, adverse visual impacts will be minimal; however,the site will
provide an opportunity for visitors to view the surrounding coastal
wetlands and wildlife in their natural habitat.
7. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and
' All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,
as amended.This Act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes,
businesses,non-profit assnciations,or farms by Federal and federally-assisted programs,and establishes uniform and
equitable land acquisition policies. Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and
businesses in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act,
as Amended,to ensure adequate relocation and a decent,safe,and sanitary home for displaced residents. All eligible
displacees will be entitled to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably to all residential
and business relocatees without regard to race,color,religion,age,national origins and disability as specified under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When relocation is neceswry,it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore,the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
•Relocation Assistance,
'Relocation Moving Payments,and
'Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
These regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are compensated fairly for the loss of value of
their property.
15

construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. North
Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural
and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of
land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). These soils are
determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of
input of economic resources. Land which is planned or zoned for urban
development is not subject to the same level of preservation afforded other
rural, agricultural areas. •
The project area is in a location consisting of no agricultural uses
and none are expected in the future. There is no farmland within the
general vicinity of the Rest Area or the new road alignment. This project
will not disturb or disrupt any farming operations. Therefore, farmland
mitigation or avoidance does not appear to be necessary.
8. Scenic rivers,trout streams,wetlands and water supply watersheds
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, declared it
the policy of the United States to preserve certain selected rivers, "which,
with their immediate environments,possess outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic,fish and wildlife, historic cultural, or other
similar values. " The Act established the Wild and Scenic River System.
The Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 declared it the policy of North
Carolina to retain "the natural and scenic conditions in some of the
State's valuable rivers by maintaining them in a free flowing state and to
protect their water quality and adjacent lands by retaining these natural
and scenic conditions. " At present, designated state Natural and Scenic
Rivers are identical with designated federal Wild and Scenic Rivers.
No river, stream or creek within the project area has been
designated as a Wild and Scenic River. However, stringent"best
management practices"must be utilized during construction to minimize
erosion that may result in temporary deterioration of the water quality.
9. Secondary impacts
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be-
depending upon local land development regulations, development demand,
water/sewer availability, and other factors-encouragement of additional
development and sprawl. Improvements to levels of service, better
• accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in travel
times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
16

Secondary impacts resulting from the Rest Area/Visitor Center
should be minimal as the project is a part of a larger highway and bridge
project R-2551,therefore secondary impacts will likely be related to the
road and bridge project, rather than the Rest Area/Visitors Center, as this
facility will not induce additional traffic, but merely capture existing
traffic.
10. Findings and Recommendations
The Rest Area/Visitor Center for the Dare County Tourism Board
would not appear to adversely impact the surrounding area, as this facility
is part of a larger project, R-2551, which is a new road on a new
alignment, and to which much of the resulting impacts can be attributed.
As visitors to the area will be passing through the area along the
new route,this facility is unlikely to draw additional vehicles or tourists to
the area, merely capturing a number of those already on their way to or
from visiting the beach areas.
There are not expected to be any adverse impacts related to noise
stemming from the Visitor Center/Rest Area,neither should there be any
adverse impacts related to lighting as there are no residences or businesses
situated nearby which might be affected.
Since there will not be any public food services provided at this
facility other than typical vending services consistent with those of other
rest areas(snack& drink machines), food services will not be a significant
draw for this facility.
This facility will have a Recreation Vehicle (RV)Dump Station on
the premises to serve such vehicles which are visiting the area's
campgrounds. The presence of the dump station may draw a greater than
average number of RV's than to a typical rest area, however,this should
not present a problem in terms of traffic congestion.
Water and sewer services for the rest area and visitors center will
be handled through the town of Manteo system.
17

B. Environmental Effects
1. Introduction
The following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigated. Project study area denotes the area bounded by
the proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.5 mi (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area. Project
region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS
quadrangle map [61.8 sq mi (163.3 sq km )],with the project as the center
point.
a. Qualifications of Principle Investigator
Investigator: Chris Rivenbark,Natural Systems Specialist.
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment
North Carolina State University
Experience: NCDOT Natural Systems Specialist, 1997-current
Expertise: Natural resources investigations, wetland
delineation,protected species surveys
b. Methodology
Prior to the site visit,published resource information
pertaining to the project vicinity was gathered and reviewed.
Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Manteo),NCDOT aerial photographs of project
study area(1:1200), Geographic Information Systems data(N.C.
Center for Geographic Information&Analysis), Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)list of protected species and N.C.Natural
Heritage Program(NCNHP)database of uncommon and protected
species and unique habitats.
A field survey for the project was conducted on January 13,
2000 by NCDOT Natural Systems Specialists Chris Rivenbark and
Mike Wood. Plant communities were identified and recorded.
Wildlife was identified using a number of observational
techniques, including habitat evaluation, active searching, and
recording identifying signs of wildlife(sounds,tracks and
burrows).
18

2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are
discussed below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil
properties and site topography significantly influence the potential for soil
erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations
or management concerns. Water resources within the project area present
important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation.
Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting
downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of
water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities,thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
a. Project Characteristics
The proposed project is located in eastern Dare County.
This area is located in the outer Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province of North Carolina(see Appendix A). Topography in the
vicinity of the study area is characterized as nearly level. Project
elevations range from 0.0-5.0 ft(0.0-1.5 m) above mean sea level.
b. Soils
Soils located in the project area are of the Baymeade-Icaria-
Johns association. However,Urban fill is the dominant soil type in
the study area, primarily associated with the borrow pit currently
within the project limits. Baymeade fine sand, Leon fine sand, and
Belhaven muck are also located within the project study area.
Information concerning specific soil types occurring in the study
area is provided below.
Baymeade fine sand soils are nearly level to sloping,well
drained soils with hydric inclusions on sandy and loamy ridges.
Organic matter content in the surface layer is low. Permeability is
moderately rapid. The seasonal high water table is 4 to 5 feet
below the surface. The slope ranges from 0 to 10 percent.
Leon fine sand soils are nearly level,poorly drained hydric
soils. Organic matter content in the surface layer is low.
Permeability is moderate to rapid. The seasonal high water table is
at or near the surface. The slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent.
19

Belhaven muck soils are nearly level, very poorly drained
hydric soils. Organic matter content in the surface layer is high.
Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid. The seasonal
high water table is at or near the surface. The slope ranges from 0
to 2 percent.
3. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource
assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage standards, and
water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship
to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
a. Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ)has assigned index
numbers for streams and tributaries in North Carolina. One
perennial stream in the Pasquotank River Basin (sub-basin 30151),
an unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound [DWQ Index No. 30-
20-(2), (8/1/90)] will be crossed by the driveway for the rest area/
visitor center. This stream carries a Best Usage Classification of
SA which are salt waters suitable for commercial, shellfishing, and
all other tidal saltwater uses. Streams classified as SA are High
Quality Waters (HQW)by definition. High Quality Waters
(HQW),refers to waters which are rated as excellent based on
biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division
of Water Quality monitoring or special studies.
No waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW)or Water Supplies(WS-I or WS-II)occur within 1.0 mi
(1.6 km)of project study area.
b. Physical Characteristics
One coastal plain perennial stream will be crossed by the
driveway for the rest area/visitor center. At the time of the field
visit, the unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound had an
approximate depth of 3.0 ft(0.9 m)with a channel depth of
approximately 4.0 ft(1.2 m). This blackwater stream had a
20

moderate flow. The average channel width was approximately 8.0
ft(2.4 m). The substrate consisted primarily of silt and sand.
c. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System(NPDES)program. Point source refers to discharges that
enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or other defined points of
discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Dischargers are
required to register for a permit. There is one permitted discharger
located within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) upstream of the project study area.
Permit number NC0035670 was issued on 5/13/94 to the Dare
County Regional Water System which discharges into an Ut to the
Croatan Sound. This Ut is not the same stream as the Ut to the
Croatan Sound being crossed by this project.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. There
are many types of land use activities that can serve as sources of
nonpoint source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic
systems, landfills,roads, and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients
are major pollution-causing substances associated with nonpoint
source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria,heavy
metals,oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed
off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and carried into
surface waters.
d. Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. To
accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and
planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the
implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management,the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are
no biological monitoring sites located within the project vicinity.
21

4. BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the
relationships between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented where applicable in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these
habitats are cited. Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by
an asterisk (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with
sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and common names
• (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only.
Biotic Communities
Three biotic communities(coastal plain wet pine flat, maintained
disturbed, and coastal plain perennial stream) exist within the project study
area and may be impacted by the subject project. Each of these
communities is described below.
a. Coastal Plain Wet Pine Flat
Dominant vegetation present in this community include
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),red bay (Persea borbonia),ti-ti
(Cyrilla racemiflora),red maple (Acer rubrum), greenbrier(Smilax
sp.), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
b. Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community consists of an area
that has recently been cleared due to construction of the new
location portion of US 64-264 (Manteo Bypass). Clearing for the
new section of the highway as well as a spoil basin has caused
significant soil disturbance and compaction throughout this
community.
c. Coastal Plain Perennial Stream
The unnamed tributary to the Croatan Sound appears to be
a channelized perennial stream that lies parallel to a soil road
within the project area. Fish likely to be found in this stream
22

include sunfish (Enneacanthus spp. and Lepomis spp.) and killifish
(Fundulus spp.). Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) may also be
present near the channel's confluence with the sound.
d. Wildlife
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists
primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited
to coexistence with human development. Mammals likely to be
present in this community include the Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
raccoon(Procyon lotor),white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). The most
common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern mud turtle
(Kinosternon subrubrum), green water snake (Nerodia cyclopion),
redbelly water snake (N. erythrogaster), banded water snake (N.
fasciata), and cottonmouth(Agkistrodon piscivorous).
Amphibians likely to be in these communities may include
bullfrog(Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog (R.palustris).
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include belted
kingfisher(Megaceryle alcyon), common crow(Corvus
brachyrhynchos),rock dove (Columbia livia), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), American robin(Turdus migratorius),
and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
5. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project study area
in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
a. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the
project study area,and thus the loss of community area.
Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect
the relative abundance of each community present in the study area
(Table 1). Estimated impacts are derived based on the
approximately 6.7 ac (2.7 ha) of right-of-way.
23

Table 1. Estimated impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community type Estimated impacts ac(ha)
Maintained disturbed 5.2 (2.1)
Coastal Plain Wet Pine Flat 0.49 (0.20)
Total 5.69 (2.3)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are
generally common throughout North Carolina because of their
adaptability to wide ranging environmental factors. Moreover, a
similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species following
project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that existing species
will be displaced significantly from the project study area
following construction. However,to minimize the temporary
effects of project construction, all cleared areas along the roadways
will be revegetated promptly after project completion to minimize
erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the
environment. Any action that affects water quality can have an
adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although most of the
disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary, some
environmental impacts caused by the proposed project will be long
term or irreversible. Installation or modification of instream
structures, such as culverts,can permanently affect many physical
stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
• Increased silt loading and sedimentation from
erosion of disturbed soils.
• Changes in light incidence, water clarity, and water
temperature due to increased sediment load and riparian
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading
and changes in surface or ground water drainage patterns.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds
such as fuel and oil from construction equipment and other
vehicles.
24

Precautions will be taken to minimize these and other
impacts to water resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
will be strictly enforced throughout the construction stage of the
project.
6. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to
two significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species. These issues retain particular significance because of
federal and state mandates which regulate their protection. This section
deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory
authority prior to project construction.
a. Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)promulgated
the definition of"Waters of the United States"under 33 CFR
§328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate and
intrastate surface waters,tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered
"wetlands"under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include
swamps,marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands are identified
based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials
into waters of the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the
USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
b. Characteristics of Surface Waters
One surface water, an unnamed tributary to the Croatan
Sound,exists within the project study area and is considered a
jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological and water
quality aspects of this water resource are presented in Section
V.C.3 of this report.
25

c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to an unnamed tributary to the Croatan
Sound will be approximately 118 ft. (36.0 m). This tributary will
likely be crossed through the installation of a culvert. Impacts to a
coastal plain wet pine flat will occur as a result of project
construction. Approximately 0.62 ac (0.25 ha)of the wetland may
be impacted.
d. Permits
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine
whether activities permitted by the federal government comply
with state water quality standards. The DWQ may require a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills or
substantially modifies waters or wetlands. The Section 401 Water
Quality Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulation. North Carolina developed General Certifications
(GCs)that satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the Corps of
Engineers' NWPs (NCDENR,DWQ, Water Quality Section,
Wetlands Water Quality Certification;undated Internet site). The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to
regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the
United States. The USACE,which administers the permit program
under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for minor
activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other
authorities. A nationwide permit(NWP) is a permit by rule. In
other words, compliance with the NWP rules satisfies the statutory
provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Forty NWPs
referenced by a number currently exist(Strand, 1997). Nationwide
23, entitled Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers certain
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or
financed, in whole or in part,by another Federal agency or
department. Nationwide Permit 23 applies when another Federal
agency or department determines that their activity, work, or
discharge is categorically excluded from an environmental impact
statement(EIS)under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The activity,work, or discharge becomes categorically
excluded when its actions neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. The Office of
26

the Chief of Engineers must receive notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concur
with the categorical exclusion determination (61 FR 65874, 65916;
December 13, 1996).
The subject project is located within a county that is under
the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA),
which is administered by the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM). DCM is the lead permitting agency for projects located
within its jurisdiction.
Due to the proposed visitor center's/rest area association
and proximity to the new US 64 bridge (TIP No. R-2551)that is
currently under construction, it is likely that a permit modification
for the existing permits that were issued by DCM, DWQ, and
USACE will be required for this project. A Stormwater
Management Permit from DWQ will also be required.
e. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may
not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the
United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Estimated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are 0.62 ac
(0.25 ha). Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required
from the DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the DCM, COE,and DWQ.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters will occur as result
of the proposed project. If fill or dredging in surface waters occurs
as a result of construction activities,permits and certifications will
be required from various regulatory agencies in charge of
protecting the water quality of public waters resources.
27

7. Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in,the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human activities. Federal law(under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be
subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered,and Proposed Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. An endangered species is considered to be a
species that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. A threatened species is considered to be a species that
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of December 20, 1999,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) lists thirteen federally protected species for Dare County (see Table
2). Descriptions and biological conclusions are provided for each species.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Dare County.
SC.I ENTIFIC`NAME :_ Q11�I1 ON NA 1 E ;e_;; ,:.:STATUS a. ,
Canus red wolf Experimental
rufus
Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle Threatened
Charadrius melodus piping plover Threatened
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle Threatened
Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle Endangered*
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened (S/A)
Eretomochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened
Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle Endangered
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Endangered
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Sterna dougallii roseate tern Endangered
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth Threatened
Note:
-Endangered(a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.)
28

-Experimental (a species that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential endangered species are treated as threatened on public land, for
consultation purposes,and as species proposed for listing on private land.)
-Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.)
Canis rufus (red wolf) Experimental
Animal Family: Canidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
The red wolf is a medium-sized canid smaller than the grey wolf and larger and
hardier than the coyote. The red wolf can be identified by its more elongated head and
shorter coarser pelage than the grey wolf. It has a coloration similar to that of the coyote,
but with a darker element.
To save the species from extinction,the Service captured as many as possible of
the few remaining animals from 1974 through 1980. Only 14 captured animals met the
criteria established to define the species and stood between its existence and extinction.
These animals formed the nucleus of a captive-breeding program established at the Point
Defiance Zoo and Aquarium in Tacoma, Washington, with the final goal of reestablishing
the species in portions of its original southeastern range. Thirty-three zoos and nature
centers in 21 states and the District of Columbia now cooperate in a national breeding
program and are valuable partners in efforts to restore red wolves.
The last red wolves were found in coastal prairie and marsh habitat because this
was the last area in which the animals were allowed to remain. Any habitat area in the
southeastern United States of sufficient size, which provides adequate food, water, and the
basic cover requirement of heavy vegetation, should be suitable habitat for the red wolf.
Telemetry studies indicate that red wolf home range requirements vary from about 25 to 50
square miles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of heavy vegetation within an area 25 to 50 square
miles was not observed during the field survey. Currently the red wolf population in this
area is confined to the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge and has not extended to Roanoke
Island. A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)database on
March 16, 2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the red wolf within the
project study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
29

Caretta caretta(loggerhead turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
Loggerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea turtles by its unique
reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is characterized by a large head and blunt jaws.
Otherwise they have 5 or more costal plates with the first touching the nuchal and 3 to 4
bridge scutes.
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke inlet,North Carolina
through Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting
grounds on the eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical
waters. Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches
that are characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small
marine animals.
Biological Conclusion: . No Effect
Suitable nesting was not observed during the field survey. In addition,a review
of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP)database on March 16,2000
indicated that there is no known occurrence of the loggerhead sea turtle within the project
study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) Threatened
Animal Family: Charadriidae
•
Date Listed: 12/11/85
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. It can
be identified by the orange legs and black band around the base of its neck. During the
winter the plover loses its black band, its legs fade to pale yellow,and the bill fades to
black. Breeding birds are characterized by white underparts,a single black breastband,and
a black bar across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. This bird in North Carolina,nesting
in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most commonly
where there is little or no vegetation,but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest
is a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The presence of people
can cause the plover to abandon its nest and quit feeding.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
30

Suitable nesting habitat in the form of nesting in flat areas with fine sand and
mixtures of shells and pebbles was not observed during the field survey. In addition, a
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on March 16,
2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the piping plover within the project
study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
The distinguishing factors found in the green sea turtle are the single clawed
flippers and a single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. This sea turtle has a small
head and a strong, serrate, lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. Nesting in
North America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring
beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest in
NC). The green sea turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons,
reefs,bays, Mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be
found, marine grasses are the principle food source for the green turtle. These turtles
require beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not
nest in NC).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of lagoons, reefs, bays, Mangrove swamps and inlets
was not observed during the field survey. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program(NCNHP)database on March 16, 2000 indicated that there is no known
occurrence of the green sea turtle within the project study area. Therefore the proposed
project will not affect this species.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 6/2/72
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the marine turtles. Unlike other marine
turtles, the leatherback has a shell composed of tough leathery skin. The carapace has 7
longitudinal ridges and the plastron has 5 ridges. The leatherback is black to dark brown in
color and may have white blotches on the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Indian oceans. Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and are often found near the edge of
the continental shelf. In northern waters they are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and
31

other inland bodies of water. Leather back nesting requirements are very specific, they
need sandy beaches backed with vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally
with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable slope and a suitable depth of coarse dry sand are
necessary for the leatherback to nest. Major nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the
only nesting population in the United States is found in Martin County, Florida.
Leatherback nesting occurs from April to August.
Artificial light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away from the sea.
Leatherbacks feed mainly on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on sea urchins, •
crustaceans, fish, mollusks,tunicates, and floating seaweed.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable nesting areas are not present within the project area. In addition, a
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on March 16,
2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the leatherback sea turtle within the
project study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be •
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water(within a half mile)with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable foraging habitat in the form of proximity to openwater(within one half
mile)was observed during the field survey. However,no nests were observed during the
field survey. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database on March 16,2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the
bald eagle within the project study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect
this species.
32

Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 12/2/70
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles that visit North Carolina's
R coast. These turtles have a triangular shaped head and a hooked beak with large crushing
surfaces. It has a heart-shaped carapace that is nearly as wide as it is long with the first of
five costal plates touching the nuchal plates. Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles have white or
yellow plastrons with a gray and olive green carapace. The head and flippers are gray.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in association
with red mangrove trees. A majority of this-sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 14.9 mile (24
km) stretch of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas,
Mexico. This turtle is an infrequent visitor to the North Carolina coast and usually does
not nest here. Kemp's ridley sea turtle can lay eggs as many as three times during the April
to June breeding season. Kemp's ridley sea turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up
by extensive swamps or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean
connections and a well defined elevated dune area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in association
with red mangrove trees was not observed during the field survey. In addition, a review
of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP)database on March 16,2000
indicated that there is no known occurrence of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle within the
project study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker(RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50%pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are> 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 500.0 acres (202.3 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
33

These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 ft (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1- 15.7m) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable foraging habitat in the form of pines that are> 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age was not observed during the field
survey. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database on March 16, 2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the red-
cockaded woodpecker within the project study area. Therefore the proposed project will
not affect this species.
Sterna dougallii (roseate tern) Endangered
Animal Family: Laridae
Date Listed: 12/2/87
Roseate tems are found throughout the world in the old world tropics. In
the western Atlantic it is found from Nova Scotia to North Carolina and from the
Florida Keys south through the greater and lesser Antilles. In North Carolina, this
tern is most commonly seen from late July to October (peak time is in early
September) as a migrant.
The roseate tern is a small whitish seabird. Summer adults have a black bill and
cap, a light gray mantle, and a very deeply forked tail that is completely white. The breast
and underside is white except during the breeding season when it obtains a rose color. The
legs and feet are reddish-orange in the summer and black in the winter. Juveniles are
brownish salt and peppery where the adults are black and have a black stripe through their
eyes.
In North Carolina,roseate tern is most commonly seen from late July to October
(peak time is in early September)as a migrant. These birds are often sighted in full
breeding plumage, and found with mixed terns. The roseate tern nests on isolated, less
disturbed coastal islands in areas characterized by sandy,rocky, or clayey substrates with
either sparse or thick vegetation. Eggs are usually laid such that shelter is provided by
grasses or overhanging objects. They may also nest in marshes, but it is an uncommon
occurrence. There is only one nesting record for North Carolina, but it is thought likely
that additional nesting records will be found in the future.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
34

Suitable habitat in the form of isolated coastal islands in areas characterized by
sandy, rocky, or clayey substrates was not observed during the field survey. In addition,
a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on March 16,
2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the roseate tern within the project
study area. Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed:
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps containing 5 to 20
branches and are often over a foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink
or reddish in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-
spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster
towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in axillary fascicles
and the legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and
flowers are relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. Habitat for
seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic
and natural manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting
ends of islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches.
Temporary populations often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and
beach replenishment. This species is very intolerant to competition and is not usually
found in association with other species. Threats to seabeach amaranth include beach
stabilization projects, all terrain vehicles (ATV's),herbivory by insects and animals,
beach grooming, and beach erosion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of barrier island beaches was not observed during the
field survey. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database on March 16, 2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the
seabeach amaranth within the project study area. Therefore the proposed project will not
affect this species.
8. Federal Species Of Concern And State Listed Species
There are three Federal Species of Concern(FSC) listed by the
FWS for Dare County (Table 3). Federal Species Of Concern are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However,the status of
35

these species is subject to change, and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern are defined as a species which
is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are
afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and
the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern For Dare County.
Scientific°Name , .wz 5" Common Name NC Status G. LLHabitat
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC/PT ** No
rafinesquii _
Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail SR Yes
Trichostema sp. 1 Dune blue curls C No
Note:
"SC"—A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"T"—A Threatened species is a species likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
"P"—A Proposed Species is one that is proposed for official listing as endangered or
threatened.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct
in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range,occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
** -- Obscure record-the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit.
A review of the N.C.Natural Heritage Program database of the rare
species and unique habitats on March 16,2000 revealed one record of
North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study
area. Moundlily yucca(Yucca gloriosa)is listed as SR for North Carolina
and was found approximately 0.8 km(0.5 mi)northeast of the project area.
It is unlikely that project construction will impact this species.
36

VI. Comments and Coordination
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with the appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
- Division of Archives and History
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-Division of Coastal Management
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix (see pages
A-1 through A-3).
B. Agency Coordination
1. Initial Project Meeting
A meeting was held on March 6, 2000 to discuss the proposed
Roanoke Island Visitor Center and Rest Area project. Representatives
from NCDOT met with representatives from the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality,North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries. The proposed project was presented to those present and their
comments and concerns were then discussed. The meeting did not
generate any major concerns with those present and the meeting ended
under the pretense that the next time the resource agencies would see the
project would be when the final environmental document was circulated
for review.
2. On Site Agency Meeting
A meeting was held on June 6, 2000 at the project site to discuss
the proposed project and the associated wetland and stream impacts with
the resource agencies. NCDOT biologist Chris Rivenbark and Project
Engineer Craig Young met with representatives from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,and the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Estimated stream and
wetland impacts were discussed as well as permitting issues for the
project. As a result of the meeting, it was determined that the original
design involved extraneous stream impacts. The designs for the site were
adjusted after the meeting such that the entire project would only impact
the stream in the vicinity of its crossing. In addition, sideslopes were
changed from 4:1 slopes to a combination of 3:1 and 2:1 slopes in the
vicinity of the wetlands and the stream crossing as a method of
37

minimizing impacts. The driveway entrance was also realigned so that it
crossed the stream at more of a perpendicular angle than originally
planned,thereby reducing the overall stream impacts.
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
NCDOT determined that due to the limited nature of the proposed
improvements, no public coordination would be performed prior to the public
hearing.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the completion of this report to
provide more detailed information on the proposed project to local citizens and to
receive additional comments on the project.
VII. Conclusion
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. The proposed
project is considered to be a"categorical exclusion"as defined by the Federal Highway
Administration's environmental guidelines(23 CFR 771.117).
CMY/
38

FIGURES

A
-iaor ,.� Aim � r4 ll I I m Le..0,ie •••r� ,
iir •a'•• s.,« 1 s4
-•• �•� 1•
Fl
•• • 1 s
.••• b%
•• 1
1
- 1
S p U N DIllf- ,
\
Ri R O4 � `JY N
k%
n o *
%*- \
111( a.
likt
�rrgi 11rf ' 111't Ilk I t..la • : •�.
- '\
c.
t \
, ' '4.", \- 't ' " ,'% ,;.,..
gliikz 4 r•
I.' .... .010,k;"‘ ti \*\
.-;;I:itil' 1:‘'' Z
p ... ..-:'' Fs.%i idt a
1, .4' - d- 1-,Iik1/4\,:kt . ic• , .1-\ \‘‘.
•
.ice .�1 ;,��
I .� //�1� O . L%�N.
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
KES Manteo
4 Construct Roanoke Island
00 I g f a It Visitor Info►mation Center and Rest Area
qOK MS along new locetIon of
US 64/264 Menteo Bypass
(T.I.P.Project K-4003)
FIGURE 1

ti fir" a +•L( +
�. rd
••
i . • f 'ys't4 , ' ;1'
hi all •
iy'�
J. I t 1
r� 4 f , , } i ;
i � I �
• ! ;F t' i i it• 4!i 1 t•
R 1�
.J" 7 1 •i •, ,I
•▪ ; ,# i , ;
3., . , 3 is, 39 ',! ,p„.,?' y, s ,LQi ,t• 1 .• _ 1,«•► �' '•,,,.
' ' `�aCf��. .• 1 t "
f 1I,�. •`" """' "r ' .i 1 4 }, •i1-1.'? a • y .C.7 1. + yV'1' t•••I It
'jf''k .lJa.ty•�::a,•1'' 'i 11 } 41 i*{ •41' ' ti ..i 4 L f { `
✓ �?4 I t t + 1` `'+,iili.' i. �•: t 11'!} 'I • t ,I_� ,4'4 in
{,1 ! i4r 1' Yy }:tt,• t +#.T#.
�I I t , • c 1, `I.'? ` 1, • 4' c? 4 •4 •14 4 1 + t' I ;y
4 (� . RQ '^.L t• 1til t{y: • 4 •tit•, w•
L 1 1 . ! I '{�'1 t .' , 1 1 + t I. .
• ,�i a �F Sy{i,aiI a• .t t: .4. :{ >:} sty•}§ '} ��t114t {1 'tk4:#1 , +4 4, 1 .:
t .
J ``:? 4 + ' +'s'i ` } , ;> y,i. { 1 {'{# :t . :{fit : ; % t;} •
q 7� t ,,,/ '•\,.. 41� 1 t ' ,f 1 .t.41,}• i', . I,y _� t'4+•
l 'ktl4 •1 ,.
+It• * 1 4'4t Iti• 6 #{y"� y •• 4 ,!I. 01' i t
•
•
1,Y0 ;tl l •' : } .t:'`it1tl # rt,#• 5 :4: 3y� }4S #fil? }•+ { !`l l •
+w • .` +1• • , , 1 1 i t,-i p' •I j} • 1,.,s , e• '4 M
t. •..- i ,a.,+' dd •1 4. •L O •• yr 1.0.
+� '.' ` i� Ir . 't 1 •{gyp•` 1` 1 1 4 '*' `o k• 4.14. '. za�•
r
�! I I; • a
` , • `� t.'OD i •}R 1}$ 1 `Is \� s! ,ago
; • b 4+ t�: } ) 4 I} �i ,i t ,\## y j• r•aa+� l4E' ��`,
..� i, ;t t 1 };•h• . 1 C f'"r • jj •••" ' R* • / ' .S ,o I �. .-t ,sr•�s
• •
•
� Q /- i {f y11 jet ?. }\'. r�+'</. •••�• .: 1 +�'}+ ' t� •+ac' r.
i �4
! ' +• , m~ I.,. I • y• 4 A ' .•
,tSr ''' • •.• ril 1� �"� +i /• t
• !T. s� : _-�� '\ t•^ %. rya .+[ •n �I i 1 y y, l'", •
-C, %.., ' ,'!,•*,\„'‘ 1'''',.. ,,,'' .,..,',,,4,&,..-•-,.--- t ‘\1 ...._... .-444114.4,(41!*,\ .,,V.,;.
•%F •'� �J� ,f•� `3< :114:,...7.'-'''''''
•• •�(.. \ /� � /♦ i"%p.l ♦�\, 4 1'1� t 1 ,4 # i 1 }# ! )(i7.1
f • ' .'^aq any. • 1i Et.• • 1'••1• � =gyp\koo \� ,r•\• " •.i.a ` ,• ,#i �r. J # 4 �,� Jfi{ `r��ra' K?p "?.� `�J •.•: •-. ' ♦.'� - ) (,r _ (�!�i si 4 IY ?i} 41 +• ,. 1
k �:, Y4ti'✓ .' tea. .s.,-. ' ' • •F • .s� , M. ) 4, y.. t ' :••.� , i.�,( r.{0 ,k4, '• ... '''>;-- �� `1rr'1- .•� • ' Q.•_)-4. , /- h,q l ,, °� }`�14 JS,`1�✓X y1{ t#� �. • : fol .y " ':� :\l�/ t 'I }�1♦ (`.%III" if.. •"�F4,fr"L,"�
rf, l`r I *•. i " �` = j. • � }'+ �` "'" r/!
' 'J /.. 1 i� "� ••fin. , •1, 1 0
A yfyl� •x , . W`\� _y w�F.s• <' i� 'H'+rti' • "6... 1• I' i ` ! 1...'�..,� 'v V
•
J// r p; is /• �,�_� ' • �`,, , ,y /� '4. 1 4 1-1 "4,i m
7 • ��II"
7.-,z,-„/ /'..," . *,,, .f
+ • Ns �`. + © •off • l • • 1 �y3 ,' \ j .. 4 .---, . I f .,.....: • ' i` • ...,,::::,•.',•.,•,,.•••: ...,.:,•:•:.„.,'..:.::......,:..,.....,..........,,,,...'.,:':::„•.:„...•,,:.•,,,,,..,,..,.:,:...•...:.„..'•,,:,....'„,:,„,•,.,...;:.• .
{t} }i
. /fit ;
•
It . -?.. ' ..-. „,•---- -•,. •N,. *,-',i_<. \--••og-• .,s," —,
)f.
,.. , ,
. .. .
to.. 4 ." ti ti` ; , 7 , a{i • i �_/ } ' ,,
_ N %t•
. ,. , ', . .
. .
4J < • ,,o ., q, O� W I_ VVVr
r
4ri • {, rd• . p •~ 1 _
/ iii . ''. '.: .. • ' . ;L:.-.--.'" ot . .'.
• Il"\ :<,
• la
1 1 �} • e ,'V'
r . _, .. " r I
,-,IrZ 4/' e.. 0\ -A\ , A,,....-...`('':.:,f?.. , , ..' -
4.
4 ,1;);.),
• ,,,, --„ ,..' . ' . .,' ,,,...':''',,Ir....... ....1'....‘,... .....:,........,,,.....,'........,...„.: : • _ ,
tY1 / / i
ts::,--,'....
1' .. 5 ,.,,lspp��
•
f �,� 1� r v+ 12 7•.
\.1 'f•-•.'..',,, '''v•'?'''' • ci',S '. !._._.,,,,•;:i• ,„,... . \ . . . , - ....,
. . g ./r,
:.
, , ,
,„...,..... , Lc
n
1�.� # • / r> h
t
j )
} `f+ tr _ • 1 ' /fit > ./.., ,,,,e,""0 ., :,. ::.•.:.:•1:..k..'.1t'..''l1.1l.?..,..?.';:;...s4,.,,,t4.,.•44Y,vie,,r.;0;„r,:;;I4..?.,t•1„,.s,
.

, t •
. t
TIP PROJECT R-2551
ESTIMATED 1994 ADT VOLUMES
(NO IMPROVEMENTS)
TO 1001! ISLAND
NANTEO
SR 1110 SR 1112 SR 1111 SR 11�1 1 I tin. SCHOOL SR 1117 SR 1126 SR 1149 NC 400 GREENVIIIF ST US 61R61
1000 c 1700 ' 3100 1400 400 ' t5500
$1200 eoo uoo o 400 8 900 8 a
o _
.s <
• 31�
of a a 4�H �1� �iH <1� nl� <l� �� °� 1 °M 55
e 8 g
c g V R s 8 8 g (z it
e200 0100 L JL JL J � JL Jl jj1 8 JL- DL JL
O r1Do .500 , 1D]00 ,]GOD , ,7D00� ,]•00 .50D
/ ", evoo eloo , q7200 , r1oo� �r1oo �$ e _
N p NC 00
fV 8� ~ F PM O $ 70 WANOl6 ?
a'^ gypI^ a ^ n R 1I <'N aL (3,1) N d N 1;1 dp .
g 1 1 900 1600 8 NO 1800
W 8 210o g leoo 8 e00 $ e00 1100 400 2200
SR 111{ •SR 1111 SR 1302 SR 1151 SR 1123 SR 1126 SR 1121 SR 1151 SR 1125
at� AIRPORT RD
i ;
/�
l/.� 20SRI0•II
l
^p PM
J Lg 14 P) 60 3900 10(2.t) DOeoo
(>,2J
1
0
. h•}' '�? SHIPYARD ROAD
Q, ,` P) c USf1/If/ Q� , ^
i
h
8 eoo CPJ
SR 1111 PM ,{ 1 r
eo t�21 . 0
Sr
3200 ,y
US64 aIN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
8 Too �• OF TRANSPORTATION
(moo
• vpd
us 761 I . DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
(mLE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
eoo6BRANCH
[HIV •DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME 11)
o •01REC110NAL FLOW(R)
Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and
OM DUUALALTRUCKS,
TOOT DIRECTION
OF D Rest Area On US 64-264 between the Croatan
Sound and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
Dare County,F.A.Project No.NHS 64(27)
MOIL:Tat f sass/M1 O P MOWN M[
torn etr01Aa tt.. State Project No. 8.1052501
T.I.P.No. K-4003
FIGURE 4a

R 4
TIP PROJECT R-2551
ESTIMATED 1994 ADT VOLUMES
(WITH NEW CROATAN SOUND BRIDGE IN PLACE)
1I MANTE()
SR 1110 SR 1121 SR 1111 SR 1174 EIEM SCHOOL SR 1197 SR 1116 SR 11119 NC 400 GREENNLIE ST US 614264
TO ROOM VIAND
�e00 21100 0 400 g e00 1000 0 1700 a 3100 a 1400 a 100 , 15500
$100
<1t 1.I== .1; nIN 1 I a 1 I a <<a- 4I 1 I a. <<o al•-
PM
a a $ 4 a � s o (7.1,
��D 1000 ID J'L JL 'JL/. JL JL . � JL JL JL J
1 1 Qm f 4100 4100 j (11600 , 1-e300 81 ' R e500 1) I }I e100 e300 ( 9500 1 (j 11400 (j ue � ( 13000rts- �'4so0
„ 7733 IN
eS 1Fi a s g IF
iON .n1N O1L 41H 1`Z= <iK d1L It(Y7!! Q�N O1N qIN d1' TO WANCIIESE
a a 18 18 '' leoo 11a eoo . NM
W 8 1100 $teoo a eao 8 eoo 1100 Ply I00 2200 900
- (� SR 1116 SR 1117 SR 1102 SR 1177 It—+•!! SR 111) SR 1116 SR 1111 SR 11)1 SR 1119
1aQ.3 AIRPORT RD IE T) Q' 4r
Cg44 4
w k • CROATAN SOUND ,rti� O4P,
W. S
5 4' 44 �o
��,\ s�0l I l
,o 10( ) 00
I,t ,ts, eoo
e e r•0.•---11 1 i00
J t w (1.r)
Ao ) c.. w SR 1 R
US 61R64 ; 5
SHIPYARD ROAD
`�0. Q�r e
8 eoo 8
!NMI 1 I
d)) /-
PM 16
e0 011 NO.-13Th
ti
3200 H
US 66 QIN 1
a NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
•
700 -"I: • OF"TRANSPORTATION
LEGEND US 264 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
111. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
0000 • rP1
0/IV •DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME)%) BRANCH
0 •DIRECTIONAL FLOW)S)
DIRECTION or D Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and
(1,7) DUAL TRUCKS, TTeT Rest Area On US 64-264 between the Croatan
Sound and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
11011 ON Of 01001 $0 Dare County,F.A.Project No.NI IS 64(27)
INr MI 100 0110106 III.
State Project No. 8.1052501
T.I.P.No.K-4003
,
FIGURE 4b

•
•
TIP PROJECT R-2551
ESTIMATED 2020 ADT VOLUMES'
(NO IMPROVEMENTS)
UNb
IS
MANTEO TO �ODI!
SR 1110 SR 1111 SR 1111 SR 1174 EIEM SCHOOL SR 1195 SR 1116 SR 1119 NC 400 GREENNIlE ST US 61 IS
64
e 2000 1000 01700 700 ... 1000 1600 0 3100 5600 a 2300 500 ' 51400
1 0 " 4 I`
1 N iv.-.
w
0 0 & g 21
f 1
g
1140055
12200 L J� J L J L J L ,J ! j) A J � J L�- !) J
w 1 11 I 1 (112800 12e00, ( 15600, ilee0o1 (117000ii) 7e500 PM 10300 tjl 1 $20000 1) (j 24400', I g 266�-p (j 27900 7500
QQ�j 777i ss .- NC 111 --
'( O -_ O ^ If f—1� _ TO wAN(IIPS!
a O �.r nI� N nI
C �, ' iI E. Z15 < L i f ) I N 4
1400 3400 1300 2600
r§ 2 SR 1116 . 12400
7 $ 1t 001e2 1100 8 S11 1I I!1 3000 700 1R1002] SR 1126 SR 1111 SR 1111 SR 1119
H y � AIRPORt RD
co4
I
l ,�
.� iR 1111
S00
Pit
JL. " (3,2)" e,00 PM
•/i çORTH
f1/2N �� D ROAD
1,60SR 1111PS
6700US64FTRANSPORTACAROLA DETIONMPARTENT
uIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
0000 LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1000 • of BRANCH
DNV •DIRECT HOURLY FL VOLUME(%)
D •DIRECTIONAL FLOMI(1<) 4"
Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and
DIRECTION D
�1,�) DUAL TRUCKS,rTe7 Rest Area On US 64-264 between the Croatan
Sound and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
fon: l I.f•M0, p o m IIIMI Dare County,F.A.Project No.NITS 64(27)
,RI full roe OP POOR
. , State Project No. 8.1052501
T.I.P.No.K-4003
FIGURE 4c

TIP PROJECT R-2551
ESTIMATED 2020 ADT VOLUMES
(WITII NEW CROATAN SOUND BRIDGE IN PLACE) •
f
To some DUND
NANTEO
SR 1120 SR WI fR 1111 SR 1171 KEN SCHOOL SR 1113 SR 112t SR 1119 NC 400 GREENV1111i Si ,US 6IR61
8 2000 1000 0 1700 0 700 11$ 1000 1e00 •0 3100 a 5000 2300 a 500 n IH 31100
. .( t U. 41r pIN it 11 $ 10 , PM
SS
0 e 8 8 (2.1J
MOO �L !) JL JL .) L w) L � 1 $J� L JL JLssPw
R0°° 13100 13500 l a 16200 81 1 $21100 81 23000-0 (i 25300 ) "per 7500
�R100 R100 7100 , 10100 gl ' 11DDD� 1 g o V.
r 'C'
Pi -ipq
• a $ FF PY ' 8 S7 NC 1/1
0 a I
7 it MI) = Z Nn ^ nl^ QIN /I.: N al=. (1.►) dIN n�K 41 �I` TO WANCIIESE
�It+ IN to to
8
3100 1300 2000
•
7/7-
$ 3700 $2400 1000 Roo 3000 Pw 200 3100 1400
p SR Illt SR 11.7 7R 1102 SR 1197 it—fd! SR 1111 SR 1124 SR 1121 SR 1111 SR 1119 G
g _I AIRPORT RD (f,/) �0,y(j(''y`1
F3 1 �, el O�Y
CROATAN SOUND ..1 id40q,,,,,..,
�I. 4`
, 4°�
4. 5314001 1I1
��• \ 10 2M 60
10-7-44 w 00 3100 `i tP (`"' 1000
�J '/fix^ SR I IOS
,p ji US 6112 t1 Q� •.M1 .y �T SHIPYARD ROAD
T ram' 4,
1100 `I
SR I I I7 py 1► t. (Q
00 j it 1'- 13
00
us 1 n r4 • NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
% (17; . OF TRANSPORTATION1100 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VS 261 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IEOEND BRANCH
1000 • apt
()NV •DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME III) 1R NOTE: The peak flow values from
p •DIRECTIONAL FLOW III) Nags Head to Manteo are different Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and
DIRECTION OF D from the total peak flow on US 641264 Rest Area On US 64-264 between the Croatan
b
(1,1) DUAL TRUCKS,TM - Nags Head. The differencehas Sound and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
been denoted by a turnrnarrowarrow showing
9011:OR/19V III 9RC11M MI direction and peak hour percentages. Dare County,F.A.Project No.NtIS 64(27)
State Project No.8.1052501
1N1 1/91►09 0►►01R19 lea. , T.1.P.No.K-4003
FIGURE 4d

FRDr'1 Dare Tour i 5t Bureau
FRX NO. : 2524731179 Jun. 30 2000 03:45PI'I P3
Visitation Statistics July 1998 -June 2000
ROANOKE ISLAND VISITOR CENTER AT FORT RALEIGH*
99/00 98/99 97/98 96/97 Diff 99/00
to 98/99 _ Inc/Dec
� ::
July 13485 15776«: + 9838 2291 •15%
August 7572 11362 14679 9718 .3790 .33%
September 4285 8246L 7429L 6510 -3961 -48%
October 5-703 7957 3952 6596 .2254 .28%
November 3707 3384 3362 . 323 10%
March (26)28-31 0 1028 0 .1028 •100%
April 8013 7913 7982 100 1%
May 9321 6654' 10610 � 2667 40%
Fiscal Year Totals 52086 62320 55447 38422 -10234 -16%
June 10962 12390:t'_;>: 5. •10962_
NAGS HEAD VISITOR CENTER AT WHALEBONE* -
99/00 98/99 — 97/98 96/97 Ditff
99/00 98/99 Inc/Dec
13880 12014 11154 1866 16%
July lgy
August 11329 11176 12855 11488_ 153 1%
September 4803 7794 6608 6427 -2991 -22%-38
October 5807 7446 3391 6356 -1639
November 10447 3492 2200 6955 199%
0 0- 0; •, � 0 Oho
December -1078 -100%
0 1078 0 i.„ °.H'
March �----� •28
April 5038 7010 6430 -ww,�0:-"tar,.:' -1972 May -20%
6281 7864 77537:'• :-,1:4.."? -1583
Fiscal Year Totals 57585 57874 43403 40358 .289 0%
June 11483 10114 _
A Visitor Centers opened March 30 through October 31 from existence through 1995(Fri.,Sat.,Sun.Only)
1996 both Visitor Centers were open from March 30 through October 30 fuli.time and from Nov.
1 through November 30 part-time(open only on Fri.andd. aft t). The with holiday
week
Whalebone
of
Thanksgiving, the welcome centers were open on
location open Sunday,December 1.
1997 Visttor Centers opened Marcn 2S. October• November opened Fri.,Sat.,and Sun.
1998 Visitor Centers opened April 3 and closed November 25.
1999 Visitor Canters opened March 26 and closed the evening of Nov.24
2000 Visitor Centers opened April 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
•ao, -.:•- OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HIGHWAYS
• • BRANCH
Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and
Rest Area On US 64-264 between the Croatan
Page 2
Sound and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
Dare County,F.A.Project No.NHS 64(27)
State Project No.8.1052501
T.I.P.No.K-4003
T FIGURE 6a

FRX NO. : 30 2000 03:45Prl P2
hF201'1 2524731179 Jun.Dare Tour Bureau �
Visitation Statistics July 1998 - June 2000
Tear to Date Visitation Comparison_
February 2000
Visitation Summary 500,000 —
480,000 —
RIVC at Manteo 338 460,000 —
Aycock Brown 46,018 440,000 —
RIVC at Ft. Raleigh 9,321 420,000 1111-:-:-:•:.:•...:—
Whalebone 6,281 400,000 • " ' i
TOTAL. 61.958 FY 99/00 FY 98/99
P" "" 7•7T,,r.',�"# 4°Tr & P, a a " ' "'"' ;" t rt, FY 99/00 FY 98/99 -
:.R -:,s -.t= .:.�to w 1...d ..
436,111 480,264
ROANOKE ISLAND VISITOR CENTER AT MANTEO
99/00 98/99 97/98 96/97 Diff 99/00 yf,
to 98/99 Inc/Dee
July 600 683 641 -83 •12%
August 614' 707 634 873 -93- •13%
September 280_ 473' 430 568 •193 -41%
October 328 412 314 577 -84 -20%,
November 210 226 122 �-• :''•. -18 •7%
December 172 160 151 u ' '.A 12 8%
January 113 143 165 ---., .: ,., -30 •21%
February 169 195 139 i_-"°Y- -26 -13%
March 287 317 327 .=-: =�•+- .30 -9%
April 370 380 430 -T....= �,3.�M •10 •3%
May 338 362 411 ;, :5� ; - 24 •7%
Fiscal Thar Totals 3481 4059 3616 6430 -577 -14%
June 541 502 jilEWiga
AYCOCK BROWN VISITOR CENTER AT KITTY HAWK
99/00 98/99 97/98 96/97 Duff 99/00 %
to 98/99 Inc./Dec
July _ 72414 74404 73880� 37294 -1990 :3%
August 61511, 66234 75395 35903 -4723 .7%
September 27373 48144 49793 18148 -20771
October 29413 39339 40676 16337 -9926 -25%,
November 21511 20366 20390 6798 1145 6%
6
December 13794 12507 14297 13678 128
7 0%
January 12226 12150 11356 12326 1` .
February ^ rn vad <' 70-I:; : I1998 F 67 8: . , pats•; vaiiaaie
::' 12995;. -:::::19770 ::: :i:2441•1::::;:•..28634::.::' 4axa .:. elNable:>:
March7%
April 38699 36009 39163 36277 2690 -2%1
May 46018 46859 51651 48381
Fiscal Year Totals 322959 356012 376601 225142 -33053 -9%
June 59646 59049 61582�
:+ February..eompansari.tfigures:.une ':41.1 Ie-.;QO3T:cuifiec cr?ui?er:nr t.w rkii :groper.Y
L { :'. - NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT
AH1a t$•'ttOt7t�,gi3t�l7��`.31 .. OF TRANS!'ORTATION
This ABVC visitor count is based on actual car count times a 2.7 multiplier `y DIVISION G ENVIRONMENTAL
- .RANCH
Page 1 Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and
Rest Area On US 64-264 between the Croatan
Sound and the US 64/NC 345 intersection
Dare County.F.A.Project No.NHS 64(27)
State Project No.8.1052501
T.I.P.No.K-4003
FIGURE 6b

APPENDIX

STATE Jw -. - \
1.
a-.. t1�� �'JO 7
- -./
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources_ • _ . 1
State Historic Preservation Office
David L.S.Brook,Administrator
James B.Hunt Jr.,Governor Division ofArc fives and History
Betty Ray McCain,Secretary Jeffrey J.Crow,Director
April 12,2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Triinspo tion
FROM: David Brook //( .41.4! `_":). ALL.tk--641
Deputy State IStonc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Crossing Croatan Soured,US64/US264 to US64-264/NC 345,TIP No.R-2551, Dare County,
ER 93-8712
We have reviewed the description of the Bowser Family Cemetery and determined that it is not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We have no further comment on this phase of the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,environmental review coordinator,at 919/733-4763.
cc: T. Padgett
a
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (9191 733-4763 • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY' 421 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4613 19191 733-6547 • 715-4801
SU'RVF' & PLANNING 515 N Blount St.. Ralciuh NC 4618 Mail Set-Nice Center. Ralctch NC T699-461R (9191 7:341545 • 715-4801

Tip T 4403 Federal Aid .,# N County C cYte...
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project D 4oP Description .ice (UM->Ol I Se c vLS(t /L c6*-K-511— /gt& StflP
tgro_N lr Ile 1,1644 40 0 oF J S L 4—Z ,' - tfrtk-A-45,0
On M I , representatives of the •
North Carolin
a Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project a'
H scoria$ meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consturauot<
Other
All parties present agree,,
✓ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area or potential etrect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
S. /0 . dC1
.epresentnuve, NCD T
Date
)flifa,iW/ C- Deptt /G017
=HwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
41� O�r Date
-4. eptauve.
I l , s i1
;tare istoric Preservation Officer
ate
If a survey report is prepared. a Anal .:ooy form and the attached list will be included.

•
Implementation Strategy
1. In instances when improvements to publicly-owned or managed facilities
conflict with freshwater wetland protection programs, an alternatives analysis should
be conducted in an effort to avoid wetland loss or alteration. For projects which
involve County-owned facilities or land, Dare County will conduct an alternatives
analysis for these projects. However, should the analysis determine that there is no
• practicable alternative,a mitigation permit proposal shall be implemented. Mitigation p-
activities and improvements designed as compensation for wetland loss occurring
in Dare County shall be located,whenever possible,in Dare County and in
proximity to the loss(emphasis added).
It should be noted that Dare County policy Policy 2.1.2(h-1)does not absolutely
preclude out-of-county mitigation. However,prior to authorizing any out-of-county
mitigation site, a permit app icant must prove to DCM's satisfaction that no
reasonable mitigation site or sites exist within Dare County.
1993 Gates County Land Use Plan Update. Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission on
May 28, 1993. No relevant policies were noted
Pasquotank County Land Use Plan Update.April 1996, Certified by the Coastal Resources
Commission on May 24, 1996.
Page 28. It is the policy of Pasquotank County government to conserve the remaining
portion of the Dismal Swamp lying within the County by supporting state and federal
efforts to preserve the swamp's unique ecological functions of aquifer recharge and
wildlife habitat.
Tyrrell County and Town of Columbia 1996 Land Use Plan Update. Certified by the Coastal
Resources Commission on January 23, 1998.
Page 140. Tyrrell County opposes any 404 wetlands mitigation projects within
Tyrrell County undertaken to replace 404 wetland areas outside of Tyrrell County
(emphasis added).
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at(919)733-2293 x 238 or via e-mail at
[e-mail]. Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program.
Sincerely,
Cathy Brittmgham
Transportation Project Coordinator
cc: Frank Jennings, DCM- Elizabeth City
Bruce Ellis, DOT
John Hennessy, DWQ
• Mike Bell,COE